Manoj Kumar @ Anuj Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2102 of 2025

¶3

Manoj Kumar @ Anuj Awasthi

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Tiwari, Ram Chandra Dwivedi, Uday Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 15

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the order proposed to be passed.

¶10

Present bail application has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.0165 of 2025 under Section 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, Police Station-PGI, District-Lucknow.

¶11

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste, is the owner of a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 493, situated in Village Kalli Paschim, Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow. It is further alleged that an area measuring 92.936 square meters of the said land was fraudulently sold by Nisha Shukla and Manoj Kumar, with the help of their associates, through a forged registered sale deed dated 28.12.2015. The informant claims that he came to know about the said act of forgery on 16.08.2024.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant is merely a marginal witness to the alleged sale deed and was brought by the purchaser at the time of its execution. This fact is evident from the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The applicant had no

¶13

NABAIL No. 2102 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

knowledge of any impersonation or execution of a fake sale deed. The alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate, and the applicant has no previous criminal history.

¶16

It is also submitted that the applicant has cooperated during the course of investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and has submitted that the investigation is going on.

¶18

On due consideration of the facts that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, the applicant has no previous criminal history, the applicant is a marginal witness, FIR has been lodged after delay of approximately 10 years, and in view of the undertaking given on his behalf to cooperate with the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to his continued cooperation in the investigation.

¶19

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within ten days from today. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶21

The application is allowed.

¶22

January 6, 2026 Vinay/-

¶23

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Kumar @ Anuj Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar @ Anuj Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Cooperative) Lko. and 2 Others

Sobran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohar Singh Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Tech. Edu. Lko. and 6 Others

Sonam Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Child Development and Nutrition Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Satish Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.